- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:19:25 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:26:41PM +0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > This thread makes me wonder if we can't improve things slightly in HTTPtre. E.g., we could say: > > > A header field MUST NOT appear in trailers unless its definition allows it. > > Receiving implementations MUST ignore header fields appearing in trailers > > when their definitions do not allow it. > > ... with an appropriate column in the header field registry to record this. I > don't think this would break any existing implementations, because trailers > are so seldom used right now, and I think there's a strong argument that this > is the case anyway; the consuming application has to expect something in > trailers to act upon it. I think it's a good idea. Ie: if the consumer didn't expect to process them, they will indeed be ignored so it's pointless for the sender to send random ones there. So ensuring that they're not mixed with the others in case of mistake or malicious attempt seems reasonable to me. Willy
Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 20:20:05 UTC